March 26, 2009

An MSNBC online poll suggests a landslide of support for keeping the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

According to the unscientific survey, 86 percent of more than 12 million participants say the motto should not be removed from money, because it "has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion."

Only 14 percent had the opposite view: "It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state."

WND has reported disputes over whether the nation's motto should be allowed on its currency as well as other challenges over similar references to a deity, including atheist Micheal Newdow's recent challenge of the use of the phrase "so help me God" at presidential inaugurations.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C, dismissed the case by Newdow and the American Humanist Association seeking to ban prayer and the phrase from inaugurations.

Newdow, a California attorney who pushed a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsuccessful effort to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, previously joined Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and others in an attempt to obtain an injunction barring pastors Rick Warren and Joseph E. Lowery from praying at Barack Obama's inauguration.

Michael Newdow

As WND reported, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton refused to halt Inauguration Day prayers and rejected Barker and Newdow's requests to stop Chief Justice Roberts from saying "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath.

In the latest decision, Walton again ruled against Newdow and company in the atheists' attempt to ban prayer and "so help me God" from future inaugurations.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, represented pastors Warren and Lowery in the case.

Brad Dacus, president of PJI, told WND, "We are pleased that the court has made it clear that religious expression by individuals at public gatherings and public forums is not a violation of the Constitution."

MSNBC explained that its poll is unscientific, cautioning that "Live Votes … may reflect the views of more individuals, but they are not necessarily representative of the general population."

In a forum for participants, there was a wide range of opinions expressed.

Among the comments:

• "The country itself was founded by a number of far-seeing individuals that understood that no matter what their personal beliefs, forcing ANYONE to believe something is a bad idea."

• "This is not a support group [for anyone] who has a personal desire and anger toward the Christian religion. It is about whether the word 'God' establishes a theocracy in the United States."

• "What line of the Constitution does it state the separation of church and state? Read it! It's not there."

• "Over 90 percent of the world's population believes in a God of some sort. It is the nature of democracy to respect the minority while being ruled by the majority. How about we do that?"

• "We've taken God out of our schools, hows (sic) that worked out so far? We are taking it out of our society how is that working out for us? Wasn't religion one of our main reasons for starting this country? Let's go back to the real meaning of 'separation of church and state' it was intended to keep the state from telling the church what to teach. Not to strip all religion and moral conduct from our society.

• "I don't think there has been any persecution because we have 'In God We Trust' on our money. There is religious persecution but it's due to just plain mean-spirited, paranoid, ignorant hatefulness."
• www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php